Issue Paper

Prepared for the Expert Group Meeting on

“Gender Equality in Human Development – Measurement Revisited”

Human Development Report Office, UNDP

June 2015

1

INTRODUCTION

Gender equality and women’s empowerment are integral to human development. Since the Beijing

Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995, considerable progress has been made, yet in the mean while

along with existing shortfalls, new and extensive challenges have emerged, pertaining both to women status

and the full realization of their human rights. To take account of expanded research and knowledge on what

affect these issues, and more and better data available, it is timely to review how achievement of the equality

and empowerment of women may better be measured in an international context. With new sources and

more data disaggregated by gender being collected and compiled, dimensions of deprivation that were

previously difficult to measure may become accessible. At the same time, advances in conceptual, empirical

and methodological knowledge could help design new approaches to quantified measurements of gender

equality and women’s empowerment. The goals, targets and indicators for the post-2015 agenda are likely

to give rise to expanded sets of national indicators; regular review of progress could strengthen monitoring

and sustain momentum.

The Expert Group Meeting on gender equality and its measurement is intended as an occasion to revisit the

various approaches to this issue through open dialogues that will take stock of several of the most prominent

measures currently in use, explore areas that need greater attention, examine methodological

underpinnings, and assess the potential of emerging data to fill gaps. These discussions are especially timely

given the additional emphasis given to the eradication of gender based inequalities in the post-2015

development agenda, as manifested in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), targets and indicators.

1. GENDER EQUALITY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

The fundamental principle of human development is for people to enlarge their choices, to realize their

potential, and to enjoy the freedom to lead lives they value or have reason to value. Equal opportunities in

all spheres, for all people, women and men alike, are at the heart of the human development. However,

those options remain unequally distributed within and across societies and unfortunately many are still

largely unavailable to women. Disadvantage and discrimination, lack of insights into what particularly affects

women’s lives, including health (physical and emotional), reinforced by social norms and values, institutions,

and public policies, exist in every sphere of women’s lives, manifested differently in different country

settings. They limit women’s capabilities, opportunities, and choices, resulting in less progress than men in

terms of health, education, standard of living, empowerment, personal security and other critical dimensions

of human development. Thus, the full potential of many women’s lives cannot reach optimal level and

humanity as a whole does not reap its potentials.

Since its inception in 1990, the Human Development Report (HDR) has presented many aspects of these

disparities – such as those in education, work, health, political participation and often underlying issues

related to data and measurement. The 1995 HDR was one of the first global development publications to

bring these ideas to the fore in an integrated manner, including a presentation of the historical and political

movement for gender equality within the human development paradigm.

Much progress has been made over the past 20 years in reducing these disparities; however, the unfinished

tasks are still pronounced and new challenges continue to emerge, and new insight is generated through

2

more extensive research and attention to disaggregated and relevant data collection that also begs new

measurements of progress for women. And although some convergence has occurred in ‘capabilities’

between men and women as measured by the traditional HDI indicators it appears not adequate for

women’s functionings and ability to exercise the same choices and realise their potential. These differences

generate unequal achievements. As a result, the full potential of many women’s lives cannot be realised.

2. MEASURING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS FOR MEN AND WOMEN USING COMPOSITE

INDICES

Composite indices have shown to be valuable instruments to capture multi-dimensional inequalities, which

help generate attention, stimulate policy debate and analysis, support advocacy and monitor progress.

Different entities have put forward different measures – each unique in its own way in the data that is used

and how it is put together – and gained significant experience in their use.

Much more data, from many different sources, is now available, indicating opportunities for further

advancement of work in this area. Better data on gender differences in many important aspects of

development are now available from official national statistical sources. These data are customarily collected

in population censuses and national household surveys on labour force, household spending, time use, as

well as in international surveys such as the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) and the Multiple Indicator

Cluster Survey (MICS). There are also non-official sources of sex disaggregated data such as the Gallup World

Poll, the World Value Survey and a variety of so-called social barometers.

The international statistical community has put considerable efforts to generate internationally comparable

gender indicators through a new initiatives such as the Evidence and Data for Gender Equality (EDGE)

Initiative, a recent project executed jointly by the UN Statistics Division and the UN Women. The initiative

resulted in a set of gender indicators on education and health, human rights, public life and decision making,

economic activities, employment, entrepreneurship and assets.1 Some of these indicators (47) are already

available for many countries, some of them have a limited coverage, and some are in the process of

development. Many of these data are now collected and reported annually allowing for the consistent

tracking of the progress over time. A larger number of indicators means a better choice for empirical analyses

of gender equality, but also a better choice for more efficient combining into composite indices for directing

policies and specific targeting and advocacy. Concurrently, ‘Data2x: partnering for a gender data revolution’2

spotlights in particular 28 key gaps in gender data across the five domains of health, education, economic

opportunities, political participation, and human security.

Although a great deal of innovative work is usually needed in construction of a composite index, many

subjective preferences and assumptions also enter the equations. Moreover, even a well-designed

composite index has to leave things out, or needs independent corroboration. That is why it is always

important to pay attention to specific indicators alongside of the composite measure to capture different

aspects of the measured concept. Each such single indicator underlines the importance of related concept

by exposing the poor or good performance.

1 http://genderstats.org/Browse-by-Indicator 2 http://data2x.org/gender-data-gaps/

3

A composite measure should meet some basic criteria. It has to be based on a solid theoretical foundation,

conform to a common notion of what is being measured, and fit the purpose for which it is developed,

correspond to strong policy or advocacy value, and be understandable and easy to describe,. It also has to

be methodologically solid, operationally viable and easily replicable. For advocacy in particular, it should

enable comparison across countries.

3. GENDER INDICES IN THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORTS AND BEYOND

The HDR launched its first set of gender related composite indices, the Gender-related Development Index

(GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), in the 1995 report. These two composite indices

were the first of their kind in bringing together measurements of gender disparities in different dimensions

of human development. Their purpose, to “engender human development”, was to highlight the gap that

exists between women and men’s opportunities and capabilities, and to also examine the progress made

in reducing gender disparities in the past few decades (UNDP 1995).

Using the GDI and GEM, countries were ranked on a global scale by their performance towards achieving

gender equality. These indices were intended to provide important tools for governments and policy-

makers to monitor the status of women and design programs to equalize opportunities provided to women

and men. As stated in the 1995 report, “investing in women’s capabilities and empowering them to

exercise their choices is not only valuable in itself it is also the surest way to contribute to economic growth

and overall development”. Therefore, “gender equality must be an integral part of the sustainable human

development paradigm (UNDP 1995)”.

However, over the years the GDI and GEM were criticized for their limitations in accurately capturing

gender disparities and their weakness in reflecting critical, concurrent gender issues. Responding to these

criticisms, the HDRs introduced an alternative pair of gender indices in 2010, the Gender Inequality Index

(GII) and the new Gender Development Index (nGDI).

In the meantime, several other organizations/agencies have also launched measures of gender inequality.

A common feature of these measures is that they are expressed as composite indices of the form

𝐼 = 𝐹(𝑑1(𝑥11, … , 𝑥1𝑀1),… , 𝑑𝐾(𝑥𝐾1, … , 𝑥𝐾𝑀𝐾)),

where 𝐼 represents the value of the index, F the unique functional form, the 𝑑𝑘, k=1,…K, the dimensions

incorporated in the index and the 𝑥𝑘𝑚, k=1,…,K, m=1,…,Mk the observed indicators used to assess the

value of the dimension 𝑑𝑘 . A summary of some of the more commonly prevalent measures is in Tables 1

and 2.

4

Table 1. Gender indices published in the Human Development Reports

Index Focus concept Dimension Indicator Indicator source

Updating frequency

Functional form Producer Index Coverage

Publication

GDI Human Development

Long and healthy life

Life expectancy at birth UNDESA Biennially GDI is the unweighted arithmetic mean of the inequality-adjusted dimension indices, i.e. the harmonic mean (EDEP) of male and female dimension indices. The adjusted income for women and men are calculated with similar procedure as HDI starting in 1999.

HDR, UNDP 155 Annually, 1995-2009

Knowledge Adult literacy rate UIS Annually

Combined gross enrolment ratio in education

UIS Annually

Standard of living

Estimated earned income ($PPP)

World Bank, ILO

Annually

GEM Empowerment Economic participation and decision-making power

Female legislators, senior officials and managers

ILO Annually GEM is the unweighted arithmetic mean of the inequality-adjusted dimension indices, i.e. the harmonic mean (EDEP) of male and female dimension indices

HDR, UNDP 109 Annually, 1995-2009

Female professional and technical workers

ILO Annually

Political participation

Women’s shares of parliamentary seats

IPU Annually

Power over economic resources

Ratio of female to male estimated earned income (PPP$)

World Bank, ILO

Annually

GII Empowerment Reproductive health

Maternal mortality ratio UN IAEG for Maternal Mortality

Biennially GII is an inequality measure based on harmonic mean of geometric means. First, the dimension indices are aggregated separately for females and males by the geometric mean to obtain the average levels of achievements across dimensions for each gender. The average level of achievement was also calculated for the entire population irrespectively of the gender. The two gender-based geometric means are aggregated by the harmonic mean and compared to the mean calculated for the entire population. Ratio of these two means is subtracted from 1 to obtain the GII.

HDR, UNDP 152 Annually, 2010-2014

Adolescent birth rate UNDESA Biennially

Empowerment Female and male shares of parliamentary seats

IPU Annually

Female and male shares of population with at least secondary education

UIS, Barro and Lee

Annually

Labour market Female and male labour force participation rates

ILO Annually

nGDI Human Development

Health Life expectancy at birth UNDESA Biennially GDI is the ratio of female HDI to male HDI HDR, UNDP 148 Annually, 2014

Knowledge Mean years of schooling UIS, Barro and Lee

Annually

Expected years of schooling UIS Annually

Standard of living

Estimated GNI per capita (PPP$)

World Bank, ILO, UNDESA

Annually

5

Table 2. Gender indices by other organizations

Index Focus concept

Dimension Indicator Indicator source Functional form Producer Index Coverage

Publication

GGGI Gender disparities

Economic participation and opportunity

Ratio of female labour force participation over male value

ILO, KILM GGGI is the unweighted arithmetic mean of the four subindices, which were constructed as the weighted arithmetic mean of the corresponding indicators. Higher weights are assigned to indicators with lower standard deviations. The weighting scheme of the 2006 index is used in subsequent years. All indicators are expressed as female to male ratios and are truncated at 1 as equity benchmark

World Economic Forum

142 Annually, 2006-2014

Wage equality between women and men for similar work (female-over-male ratio)

WEF, Executive Opinion Survey

Ratio of female estimated earned income over male value

WEF calculations based on HDR methodology

Ratio of female legislators, senior officials, and managers over male value

ILO

Ratio of female professional and technical workers over male value

ILO

Educational attainment

Ratio of female literacy rate over male value UIS, HDR

Ratio of female net primary enrolment rate over male value

UIS

Ratio of female net secondary enrolment rate over male value

UIS

Ratio of female gross tertiary enrolment rate over male value

UIS

Health and survival Sex ratio at birth (female-over-male ratio) CIA World Factbook

Ratio of female healthy life expectancy over male value

WHO

Political empowerment

Ratio of females with seats in parliament over male value

IPU

Ratio of females at ministerial level over male value

IPU

Ratio of number of years of a female head of state (last 50 years) over male value

WEF calculations

6

Index Focus concept Dimension Indicator Indicator source Functional form Producer Index Coverage

Publication

SIGI Social norms and discrimination in social institutions

Discriminatory family code

Legal age of marriage SIGI country profiles Each subindex is aggregated from variables using a reasonable weighting scheme (through a polychoric Principal Component Analysis procedure). SIGI is an unweighted arithmetic mean of a non-linear function of the subindices. The non-linear transformation (square each subindex) means that high inequality penalized in one dimension can only be partially compensated with low inequality in another dimension

OECD Development Centre

108 2009, 2012, 2014

Early marriage UN World Marriage Data, DHS, MICS

Parental authority SIGI country profiles

Inheritance SIGI country profiles

Restricted physical integrity

Violence against women SIGI country profiles, DHS, MICS, World Value Survey, WHO, International Violence Against Women Survey, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Female genital mutilation WHO, MICS, DHS

Reproductive autonomy DHS, MICS, WHO

Son bias Missing women CIA, UNPD

Fertility preferences DHS, MICS, EUROSTAT, National household surveys

Restricted resources and assets

Secure access to land SIGI country profiles

Secure access to non-land assets SIGI country profiles

Access to financial services SIGI country profiles

Restricted civil liberties

Access to public space SIGI country profiles

Political voice SIGI country profiles, World Bank, IPU

GEI Gender disparities

Education Primary school enrolment UIS The ratio of female to male performance for each of the eleven indicators is computed and rescaled to generate an index ranging from 0 to 100. The indicators are weighted by population to account for the gender differences in population share in each country, and then aggregated by unweighted arithmetic mean into dimension indices. GEI is the unweighted arithmetic mean of these three dimension indices

Social Watch

154 2004-2007, 2008, 2009, 2012 Secondary school enrolment

Tertiary education enrolment

Adult literacy rate

Economic participation

Labour force gap ILO

Non-vulnerable employment

Estimated income gap

Women empowerment

Seats in parliament IPU

Legislators, senior officials, and managers ILO

Professional and technical workers

Women in ministerial positions IPU

7

Index Focus concept

Dimension Indicator Indicator source Functional form Producer Index Coverage

Publication

EGI Gender equality and women's empowerment in the environmental sector

Gender based rights and participation

Data for 27 indicators were compiled from national and international statistics

Seven new data sets compiled by the EGI team and two new external data sets: UNFCCC, UNCCD, CBD, CEDAW, Agenda 21, WSSD, Rio+20, MDGs, CSW 2008, Fourth World Conference on Women 1995, as well as main data sources from the World Bank, FAO, UNICEF, UNESCO, EPI, WHO, IPU, Freedom House, and national statistics offices

The overall EGI score for each country is based on the weighted averages of the six categories and scaled from 0 to 100, where 100 stands for gender equality

Global Gender Office of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

72 2013-

Ecosystem

Gender based education and assets

Governance

Country reported activities

Livelihood

EU-GEI Measure of gender equality as a multi-dimensional concept

Work Participation Eurostat-EU LFS The overall Index is composed of 6 major domain indices and 12 sub-domain indices, all of them bound between [1,100], where 1 stands for complete gender inequality, with any value above indicating a proportional increase of gender equality, with full gender equality at 100. The EU-GEI provides lower levels of compensability at sub-domain and domain levels since it relies on geometric means. In addition, because it uses equal weights and arithmetic aggregation at the level of variables, it allows higher compensability within sub-domains. At the domain level, the robustness analysis selects a combination of weights that relies on those provided by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process with the network of EIGE's experts (mean experts' weights). These weights are equally shared at sub-domain and indicator level

European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

27 Biennially, 2013- Segregation Eurostat-EU LFS

Quality of work Eurostat-EU LFS, Eurofound-European Working Conditions Survey

Money Financial resources Eurostat-Structure of Earnings Survey, Eurostat-EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

Economic situation Eurostat-EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

Knowledge Educational attainment Eurostat-EU LFS

Segregation Eurostat-UNESCO/OECD/Eurostat (UOE) questionnaires on Educational Statistics

Lifelong learning Eurostat-EU LFS

Time Economic activities -

Care activities Eurofound-European Working Conditions Survey

Social activities Eurofound-European Working Conditions Survey

Power Political power EC-DG Justice-Women and Men in Decision Making

Social power -

Economic power EC-DG Justice-Women and Men in Decision Making

Health Status Eurostat-EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, Eurostat-demographic statistics

Behavior -

Access Eurostat-EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

Intersecting inequalities

Population groups in specific age, citizenship, disability, ethnicity, marital status, religion, sexual orientation, and social class

Discrimination and other social grounds Eurostat-EU LFS

Violence Direct violence FRA survey on violence against women

Indirect violence Eurobarometer

8

Apart from the indices recorded in the table above, researchers in this area have proposed several

methodologies to improve the measurement of gender equality in human development. White (1997)’s

Gender Equality Index and Forsythe et al. (2003)’s Gender Inequality are alterations of HDRs’ GDI.3 Dijkstra

and Hammer (2000)’s Relative Status of Women Index tackles on three main dimensions: (1) ratio of the

female and male index for education, (2) ratio of the female and male index for life expectancy, (3) relative

female and male returns to labour. In a following work, Dijkstra (2002)’s Standardized Index of Gender

Equality serves as a measure of relative position of female to male across countries. The African Gender

and Development Index was developed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

in 2004. This index is the first effort to successfully measure and document gender equality and women’s

empowerment for the African countries. It has two major components: (1) the Gender Status Index,

capturing quantitatively measurable issues related to gender disparities, and (2) the African Women’s

Progress Scoreboard, a qualitative evaluation of governments’ performance in their implementation of

specific treaties, declarations, and resolutions. Recent proposals include Permanyer (2008)’s

Multidimensional Gender Equity Index, which is weighted by measure of degree to which gender

inequality favors one sex, and Beneria and Permanyer (2010)’s Women Disadvantage Index, which

decomposes multidimensional gender disparities to explain the influence of different subcomponents on

the overall levels of gender inequality. Klasen and Schüler (2011)’s Gender Gap Index, which was the

precursor of HDRs’ nGDI that measures male and female human development achievements separately.

Economic Intelligence Unit (2012)’s Women’s Economic Opportunity Index consists of five dimensions: (1)

labour policy and practice (2) women’s economic opportunity, access to finance (3) education and training

(4) women’s legal and social status (5) gender business environment and 26 indicators. This index shows

the extent to which underlying institutions affect women’s equality of access to opportunities, in relation

to women’s participation and economic opportunity. These efforts have been accompanied also in efforts

towards improving the quality and availability of gender related data.

4. COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The presence of several different measures is indicative of the multiple, inter-related dimensions along

which gender-based deprivations can occur. A simple empirical analysis identifies that while these

measures are inter-related, they are also distinct. A pair-wise correlation analysis of values and ranks

based on 8 indices, GII, nGDI, SIGI, GGGI, GEI, EU-GEI, GDI and GEM see Table 3 and Figure 1, has shown

that the correlation ranges from low (nGDI and EU-GEI) to high (nGDI and GEI), (GGGI and GEI), (GGGI and

EU-GEI) and (SIGI and EU-GEI).

3 See White (1997)’s Gender Equality Index formulated as GDI/HDI and Forsythe et al. (2003)’s Gender Inequality formulated as (HDI-GDI)/HDI.

9

Table 3. Pairwise correlations of selected indices across countries a) Values

GII nGDI SIGI GEI GGGI EU-GEI GDI GEM

GII 1 (152)

nGDI -0.684 (136) 1 (148)

SIGI 0.692 (98) -0.768 (91) 1 (108)

GEI -0.709 (139) 0.848 (129) -0.697 (98) 1 (152)

GGGI -0.532 (132) 0.663 (129) -0.707 (88) 0.840 (131) 1 (142)

EU-GEI -0.608 (27) 0.131 (27) -0.844 (10) 0.733 (27) 0.820 (27) 1 (27)

GDI -0.888 (136) 0.734 (148) -0.681 (91) 0.691 (129) 0.418 (129) 0.790 (27) 1 (148)

GEM -0.709 (91) 0.546 (91) -0.637 (50) 0.700 (93) 0.800 (93) 0.796 (26) 0.545 (91) 1 (109)

Note: The number in the brackets denotes the number of countries used for computation of correlations.

b) Ranks

GII nGDI SIGI GEI GGGI EU-GEI GDI GEM

GII 1

nGDI 0.671 1

SIGI 0.734 0.772 1

GEI 0.722 0.803 0.728 1

GGGI 0.475 0.596 0.663 0.808 1

EU-GEI 0.653 0.255 0.788 0.591 0.722 1

GDI 0.906 0.699 0.729 0.688 0.403 0.816 1

GEM 0.682 0.574 0.668 0.725 0.678 0.740 0.747 1

A moderate correlation of the GII and the SIGI with other indices underlines their distinctive compositions.

The low correlation of the nGDI with EU-GEI might indicate the limited suitability of the GDI in capturing

gender disparities in developed countries. The GDI and GII seem to be highly correlated pointing out that

the design of both indicators was aimed at capturing inequality through the use of general means of

higher order.

10

Figure 1. Scatterplot matrix of values of selected gender indices

The experience with these (and other) indices over the last quarter century have helped identify some of

the desirable characteristics of a suitable measure. These include:

i. Well-founded theoretical basis, including understanding of range of applicability;

ii. Clarity of and simplicity of interpretation;

iii. Inter-dimensional relationships consistent with accepted knowledge in the field;

iv. Well-defined, globally comparable indicators;

v. Ability to stimulate policy debate and analysis and advocacy

vi. Not reductive, but builds on current insights and experiences with other indices

In addition to these characteristics, for a global index it is also important that it is based on globally

adequate indicators, so-called universality. While, for example genital mutilation/cutting is a powerful

indicator of gender inequality in some countries, it is not a representative indicator globally. An index

should be able to stimulate debate that touches on such gross rights violation.

Although significant progress has been made over the past few decades, gender inequality remains a

major barrier to human development. Women in every society still face various disadvantages and

GII2013

GDI2013

SIGI2014

GEI2012

GGGI2014

EU-GEI2010

oldGDI

GEM2013

0 .5 1

.6

.8

1

.6 .8 1

0

.2

.4

.6

0 .2 .4 .6

0

.5

1

0 .5 1

.5

1

.5 1

40

60

80

40 60 80

.4

.6

.8

1

.4 .6 .8 1

0

.5

1

11

discriminations. Such disadvantages and discriminations have changed form over time and across

societies. For example, between 1990-2012 convergence towards gender equality in education at all levels

has been taking place. However, women’s progress in capacity has not translated uniformly into economic

opportunities and outcomes. Wage gaps and occupational segregation between women and men

continue to persist, with the exact extent varying across countries.

At the same time, deeper understanding of the issues and the continuing progress in the availability of

gender disaggregated data – for example relating to time use, care and unpaid work, gender based

violence and intimidation and harassment etc. – make it possible to present a more comprehensive

picture of the divergences that need to be addressed to truly advance human development. More

extensive use of opinion surveys and polls may also complement more traditional data in revealing

barriers for women to claim their rights and realize their potential.

As a pioneer the HDR will continue to engage in debates with stakeholders about the importance of

gender issues, focusing on equality of opportunities and women’s empowerment. This paper serves as a

reference for reviewing these past efforts and for reigniting thinking to push progress forward.

The meeting will bring a better understanding of different approaches; the relevance of composite indices

in measuring gender inequality will be addressed; the complementarity of various indices will be

discussed; the desired properties of indices will be examined and the real world examples will be provided.

All of these will aid the Human Development Report Office in its quest for a policy and advocacy relevant

gender inequality measure.

12

REFERENCES

Beneria, L., and I. Permanyer (2010). “The Measurement of Socio-economic Gender Inequality Revisited,”

Development and Change, 41 (3): 375-399.

Dijkstra, A. G. (2002). “Revisiting UNDP’s GDI and GEM: Towards an Alternative,” Social Indicators Research, 57 (3):

301-338.

Dijkstra, A. G., and L. C. Hanmer (2000). “Measuring Socio-Economic GENDER Inequality: Toward an Alternative to

the UNDP Gender-Related Development Index,” Feminist Economics, 6 (2): 41-75.

Economic Intelligence Unit (2012). “Women’s Economic Opportunity Index,

http://www.eiu.com/public/thankyou_download.aspx?activity=download&campaignid=weoindex2012

European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2013). “European Gender Equality Index,”

http://eige.europa.eu/content/activities/gender-equality-index

Forsythe, N., R. Korzeniewicz, N. Majid, G. Weathers, and V. Durrant (2003). “Gender Inequalities, Economic

Growth and Economic Reform: A Preliminary longitudinal Evaluation,” in: ILO Employment Paper no. 45, Geneva:

International Labour Office.

Gaye, A., Jeni Klugman, Milorad Kovacevic, Sarah Twigg, and Eduardo Zambrano (2010). “Measuring Key Disparities

in Human Development: The Gender Inequality Index,” Human Development Research Paper 2010/46.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Gender Office (2013a). “Environment and Gender

Index,” http://genderandenvironment.org/egi/

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Gender Office (2013b). “The Environment and

Gender Index (EGI), 2013 Pilot,” http://genderandenvironment.org/resource/environment-gender-index-2013-

pilot/

Klasen, S. (2014). “UNDP’s Gender-related Measures: Current Problems and Proposals for Fixing Them,” HDRO

Working Paper.

Klasen, S., and D. Schüler (2011). “Reforming the Gender-Related Development Index and the Gender

Empowerment Measure: Implementing Some Specific Proposals,” Feminist Economics, 17 (1): 1-30.

Lopez-Claros, A., and S. Zahidi (2005). Women’s Empowerment: Measuring the Global Gender Gap, Geneva: World

Economic Forum.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite

Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. Paris: OECD.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014). “Social Institutions and Gender Index

(SIGI),” http://genderindex.org/

13

Permanyer, I. (2008). “On the Measurement of Gender Equality and Gender‐related Development Levels,” Journal

of Human Development, 9 (1): 87-108.

Social Watch (2012). “Gender Equity Index (GEI),” http://www.socialwatch.org/taxonomy/term/527

UNDP (1995). Human Development Report 1995: Gender and Human Development, New York: UNDP.

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) (2004). The African Gender and Development Index, Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.

White, H. (1997). Patterns of Gender Discrimination: An Examination of the UNDP’s Gender Development Index.

Institute of Social Studies: The Hague, Netherlands.

World Economic Forum (2006). The Global Gender Gap Report 2006, Geneva: World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum (2014). The Global Gender Gap Report 2014, Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Zambrano, E. (2010a). “Gender Inequality Do’s and Don’ts,” California Polytechnic State University Economics

Department Working Paper, San Luis Obispo.

Zambrano, E. (2010b). “On the Measurement of Gender Inequality,” California Polytechnic State University

Economics Department Working Paper, San Luis Obispo.